In his weekend defense of Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the Post's Dana Milbank seemed to go out of his way to not explain why so many Democrats were angry, or “felt betrayed” by the Connecticut senator for his last-minute announcement last week that he would not vote for the proposed health care reform legislation unless key changes were made. (They eventually were.)

Milbank cheered the fact that the “iconoclastic” Lieberman had again angered his former Democratic colleagues as well as their supporters, and Milbank claimed it was Lieberman's critics who were in the wrong. i.e. Joe was just being Joe. It was the liberals who'd changed. It was liberals who were trying to enforce a litmus test on Lieberman.

But note the only passage where Milbank even tries to explain, or put into context, why emotions ran so high last week when Lieberman so publicly, and suddenly, balked at the health care bill [emphasis added]:

And his explanations of why he is undermining the Democrats' health-care legislation aren't exactly cogent.

How were Lieberman's explanations not cogent? Milbank never says. What did Lieberman do to undermine the Democrats' legislation last week? Milbank remains mum, but spends lots of time blaming liberals for over-reacting to Lieberman's maneuvers.

The truth is that Lieberman last week suddenly balked at the inclusion of a Medicare expansion program known as Medicate buy-in, which would allow people under the age of 65 to purchase Medicare coverage. Lieberman promoted the idea when he was VP candidate in 2000. He promoted the idea as a 2006 candidate for senator. And he promoted the idea three months ago. (See below.)

Then last week Lieberman announced he wouldn't vote for health care reform unless the Medicare buy-in was removed. That's why Democrats and liberals were livid. But Milbank, like so many in the press, made sure to leave all that information out.

UPDATED: This Milbank passage is also wildly misleading:

Lieberman probably is still angry about being beaten by Connecticut businessman Ned Lamont and forced to run as an independent while his Democratic colleagues -- including Barack Obama -- campaigned for his opponent.

The truth is Obama supported Lieberman in his primary battle against liberal candidate Lamont, and Obama caught holy hell from liberal bloggers for doing so in 2006. The only time Obama “campaigned” for Lieberman's opponent was after Lieberman lost in the primary and then faced Lamont in the Connecticut general election, and after Lieberman quit the Democratic Party to run as an Independent.

Why any of Lieberman's former Democratic colleagues would have supported him in 2006 after he quit the Democratic Party, Milbank never really explains.